BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,338Mumbai1,275Chennai553Pune533Kolkata489Bangalore487Ahmedabad353Hyderabad228Jaipur214Raipur142Surat133Indore118Chandigarh111Amritsar108Visakhapatnam103Cuttack96Cochin81Rajkot62Nagpur44Lucknow33Agra31Allahabad27Karnataka24Jodhpur23Guwahati16Patna12Dehradun12Ranchi12SC10Varanasi8Jabalpur5Calcutta5Punjab & Haryana2Telangana2Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Panaji1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 406Section 143(3)5Section 44A5Addition to Income5Section 2504Disallowance4Section 1443Section 40A(3)3Section 143(2)2Section 40A(2)(b)

SANJAY KALE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 234/JAB/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (Mp) Chhindwara (Mp) Pan : Amcpk 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 22.09.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/W/I/Cwa/203/10-11, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 24.12.2010 By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(4)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A
2
Deduction2
TDS2

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act for the alleged cash expenditure exceeding Rs.20,000/- in cash totaling to Rs.3,65,549/- needs to be confirmed. We order accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th March, 2018 at Jabalpur. (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jabalpur; Dated 16/03

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

disallowance of Rs. 1,21,807/- by applying the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. As per the ledger account of Mine safety expense and Electric expense the assessee has paid on 24.12.2013 only to Rs. 19,000/- to Ramcharan and has paid Rs. 9

M/S RAMBILAS GATTANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1/JAB/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 01/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   M/S. Rambilas Gattani, Income Tax Officer, Mohta Plot, Tilak Ward, Vs Ward 1, Pipariya, Dist. Hoshangabad

For Appellant: Shri L.L. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri PD Chougule, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 40A(2)(b) to make the disallowance of interest expenditure paid to relatives. We find no justification in the addition so made. We, therefore, delete the same and allow ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal. 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th March, 2018 at Jabalpur. (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAGAR vs. SHRI BIRMANAND SUNDRANI, SAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/JAB/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 61/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2014-15   Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Birmanand Sundarani, Income-Tax, Vs Sindhi Colony, Bina, Sagar (Mp) Circle Sagar Pan : Anjps 0520 P / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv. $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Jabalpur Dated 4Th September, 2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri PD Chougule, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance to 30% of salary ignoring the fact that the allowability of expenses in previous assessment year would not obviate the need to establish the expenditure being wholly and exclusively for the business. ACIT Vs. Shri Birmanand Sundrani AY : 2014-15 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving cognizance to the fact that the amount of Rs.49

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 194CSection 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40

9,13,110/- and Rs. 1,16,883/- under sec. 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. The same deserves to be modified according to law. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. It is seen that the appeal is delayed by about